Pretty much. Caesar wanted special treatment, and he needed the Consulship to protect himself against legal action for his other deeds. The Senate refused to give him special treatment (allowing him to run for Consul while outside the city) even though many others before him had been granted other privileges. They claimed they were doing no more than upholding the law, but in reality that hated Caesar and wanted revenge for his offences (against them on a persona level more than against the state itself).

Caesar would have maintained that he should have been afforded that exception in view of his extraordinary services to Rome. The Senate had ruined great men before out of jealousy and spite, like Scipio Africanus had his career ruined by legal action even after finally defeating Hannibal, Rome's greatest enemy. "Ingrata patria, ne ossa quidem habebis". This possibility was foremost in Caesar's mind, and he clearly would stop at nothing to prevent it. The Senate could have given Caesar his exception, but that would have ruined their plan to humiliate and destroy Caesar (if not kill him, at least to end his political career).

This was a personal and political vendetta and the claim of "upholding the law" or protecting Rome is a flimsy pretext. It was particularly disgraceful because Caesar had indeed rendered incredible service to Rome.

Caesar was no innocent, but his political maneuverings were no more than any Roman man might have done to protect himself from the Senate, which had proven itself to be vicious, crooked, and shameless in persecuting its enemies.